performing pastel-colored poodle,
in a clown and poodle show
[OCRegister]

Ari Berman in The Nation takes a look at the Dems, embroiled in their running soap opera of duck and cover. Hide from it all but be The Alternative --also known as The Candidate:

Iraq returned as a central theme in George W. Bush's State of the Union address this year. With the war on the minds of many members of the public and with the 2006 midterm elections approaching, it seemed natural that the opposition party would forcefully challenge the President's policy.

Instead, the Democrats ducked and covered. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine devoted a mere three sentences to the Iraq War in his official Democratic response to Bush.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, a leading party strategist, didn't even mention Iraq when asked on television what his party would do differently from the Republicans--a hint of how the Democrats have downplayed the issue internally.

On the advice of top party consultants...

[there we go again! If they had any decency, or could close their greasy palms, they'd leave the country, FOR SHAME!],

the Democrats in the run-up to the 2006 midterm vote are either ignoring Iraq and shifting to domestic issues (the strategy in the 2002 midterm elections) or supporting the war while criticizing Bush's handling of it (the strategy in the 2004 presidential election).

Three years into the conflict most Democrats can finally offer a cogent critique of how the Bush Administration misled the American people and mismanaged the Iraqi occupation, but they're unwilling or unable to suggest clearly how the United States should extricate itself from that mess.

Count on the Dems to catch the drift, and depart, vacate any idea of leadership. Remembering that Murtha stepped forward FIVE months ago, read it and weep:

For a moment on November 17, when Representative Jack Murtha boldly called on Bush to bring the troops home, the Democrats seemed to have found such a voice--and with it an opportunity to shift the debate to how to exit Iraq, not whether to stay.

Sure, plans to redeploy US troops within a year or two, sponsored by Russ Feingold in the Senate, the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House and the Center for American Progress (CAP), were already on the table.

But none brought with it the standing and sense of urgency of Murtha, who previously had been known on Capitol Hill as the dean of the defense hawks.

Well, do you think that Pelosi and Reid and others are, you know, hampering a strong anti-Iraq War coalition from forming within congress ?

I do.

Progressives/left/liberal need to break away. there is no place for them in the party.

A Washington Post survey of eight prominent foreign policy advisers found that only one, former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, proposed a clear plan for how to get out.

As prominent Democrats shied away from the fight, Bush went on the offensive with a series of Iraq speeches, allowing Republicans to caricature Murtha's plan as "cut and run."

Pollster Mark Penn [Penn is Hillpac's pollster] and Democratic Leadership Council founder Al From warned that foes of the war "could be playing with political dynamite" and needed to be "extremely careful."

These Democrats seemed transfixed by the ghost of George McGovern, instead of reacting to the mounting unease with Bush's policies. [...]

Democrats in Congress subsequently went mute on the war.

By mid-February even Pelosi was reassuring nervous party strategists that there would be no specific talk of Iraq when the Democrats unveiled their own version of the GOP's Contract With America later this year.

The bulk of Democratic strategists approved of the no-details-on-Iraq approach.

Do nothings. Newly born. Born again. The No Details New Democrats, Republicrats, Demlicans, Trojan Horses, Republican-Lite... we all know the drill.

And here is a tidy quote from Steve Elmendorf:

"You can't hope the Democrats will ever have a unified message, other than a unified critique of how Bush mishandled the war," says Steve Elmendorf,

a former chief of staff to Representative Dick Gephardt and senior adviser to the Kerry campaign who's helping plan the Democratic agenda for '06.

Begala:

"The point of an agenda is to be unified, and the party clearly won't be." Nor is it realistic to expect they should be, says longtime political adviser Paul Begala:

"I don't think a Congressional candidate ought to presume to be able to solve unsolvable problems."

Let us be clear, the issue is not, any longer, voting for the war. More than half the Democrats in the senate voted FOR IWR, and few have recanted, much less apologised to the American people. Let's get real here, they have provided, already, the heavy lifting to get us there, and keep us there. They now plan to continue with the proven themes.

The issue is a measured plan to withdraw, semi-withdraw -- oh, troops at the ready in the friendly circle of friends we have, Doha Qatar, UAE, Jordan Israel others... We are in the bag for ''war in the region''. We are readiness at the ready!, there to put down palace coups or internal armed insurrection. We stand ready! Our sphere of influence is across 27 countries in the broader region, from the 'Stans westward. As the Iraq invasion took place we "greatly expanded our footprint in the Horn of Africa".

That is all this is about: Sign on to a plan for measured withdrawal.

Understand this: The party will split, whether it cuts the damned baby in half or not, because it, Biz Wing, War Wing, supports war forever, permanent bases forever. They voted for it. And for Negroponte too, 98/2. And they voted for him when Clinton made him Ambassador to the Phillipines. Let's get real.

The short version: The party supports George Bush. Oh they flail around, they rail, they bitch, they moan... but when the cow chips are down? -- crickets -- His poll numbers are down? Cue the crickets.

Those who see it otherwise, see issues of morality and pragmatism in a responsive approach:

It may be impossible to assume that discussion of the war can wait until after November, given the recent events on the ground. If most Democratic strategists have continued to counsel caution on Iraq, a few do not--for moral and pragmatic reasons.
"I think the Democrats are afraid of the issue, but I don't think they should be," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. Lake had previously fallen into the camp of consultants who advised Democrats to ignore the war and pivot to domestic issues.

Now she says that approach is no longer possible, and that Democrats must talk about a plan to bring troops home. "Iraq is the essential factor in the voters' landscape," Lake says, the number-one issue feeding distrust of the President and a desire for change.

And Brzezinski, NSA under Carter:

"The tone, unfortunately for the Democratic majority, has been set by the two Clintons," says Brzezinski, a longstanding hawk and vocal critic of the Iraq War, "who have decided that Senator Clinton's chances would be improved if she can manage to appear as a kind of quasi-Margaret Thatcher, and therefore she's been loath to come out with a decisive, strong, unambiguous criticism of the war, with some straightforward recommendations as to what ought to be done. And I'm afraid that has contaminated the attitude of the other Democratic political leaders." [...]
"Prolonging the war is damaging us in every respect," says Brzezinski.

"The costs are quite extensive and if you add the economic costs [$1 trillion] and the costs in blood [roughly 20,000 US casualties], staying the course is not a very attractive solution or definition of victory.

And I think Democrats could make that case intelligently and forcefully."

Berman closes on some notes of hope, but I am very sorry: I say, think back. Did they ever get it, in recent memory? '00?... and '02? Grab a hankie and think back to '04? Kerry at the Grand Canyon? He'd vote for it again! It did not mean war...

Last year? What did they "get" last year? We got primary fields cleared, for the likes of Casey, just ONE example.... Who is pro-war, pro-life, supports defense of the fetus from conception (that heralds criminalisation for drs and women, let's get real) and would vote for ... Alito.

A gift quote, well timed for the administration and the speeches, that Casey and Rendell gave to Bush. Bush, three times, quoted Rendell's support for Alito, identified him each time as a Democratic governor, naming him. It is called "supporting Bush".

I say it makes Rendell and Casey what Bush called "discerning Democrats" who should join with Zell and vote for Bush. I rather suspect Casey did. Rendell may very well have.

Let's get real. They divvy up power.

Caste your eyes back up to the quote from Brzezinski, about the Clintons:

"The tone, unfortunately for the Democratic majority, has been set by the two Clintons, who have decided that Senator Clinton's chances would be improved if she can manage to appear as a kind of quasi-Margaret Thatcher, and therefore she's been loath to come out with a decisive, strong, unambiguous criticism of the war, with some straightforward recommendations as to what ought to be done.

And I'm afraid that has contaminated the attitude of the other Democratic political leaders."

Vote for us, we're poodles! About where it is.

Progressives need to pull away. There is no place for them in the party.

Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that the storm could breach New Orleans' flood defences has emerged.

The footage, obtained by the Associated Press, also shows Mr Bush being told of the risk to evacuees in the Superdome.

It appears to contradict Mr Bush's statement four days after Katrina hit, when he said: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."

Of course, Bush being caught in yet another lie is hardly news.

The footage does the president no favours, the BBC's Justin Webb reports from Washington.

It shows plainly worried officials telling Mr Bush very clearly before the storm hit that it could breach New Orleans' flood barriers.

In the past, the president has said nobody anticipated a breach but the video shows Michael Brown, the top emergency response official who has since resigned, saying the storm would be "a bad one, a big one".

"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster, not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to respond to this event," Mr Brown says.

He also gives a strong, clear warning that evacuees in the Superdome in New Orleans could not be given proper assistance.

And what is the Bush Administration's response? Typically, they try to pooh-pooh the whole thing.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, shown the footage for the first time at a press conference, told Reuters he was "shocked" by what it revealed.

"It surprises me that if there was that kind of awareness, why was the response so slow?" he asked.

But Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said most transcripts of discussions had already been made available to congressional investigators examining the response to Katrina.

"There's nothing new or insightful on these tapes," he said.

Yeah, Bush has lied to the American people. That's not news. Bush knew of the dangers to New Orleans, and opted to go party instead. That's not news.

Then I realized after watching the BBC piece that the technology used to perform the video briefing (while Bush was vacationing in Texas and Natâ€™l weather service people were getting worried in DC) also created a record of the briefing. It may have been a secure connection, but since nobody bothered to store the file securely, or encrypt it, a whistleblower (?) was able to leak it to the press.

Iâ€™m guessing they will not make this mistake again. But it is a great example of how in todayâ€™s world, few communications are ephemeral. Technology that enables new forms of communicationsâ€” like video conferencingâ€” also creates new records of communications that can be rebroadcast to parties the speakers never intended. Maybe this experience will make the Bush administration more sympathetic to privacy concerns?

I think that when it comes to governmental officials' being held to accountability, they're quite vigorous in defending "privacy." It's when it comes to the rest of us peasants that privacy is either a "quaint, old-fashioned notion" or a "tool for terrorists."

I am thoroughly sick of the Democratic Party. They're zombies. They have no sense of urgency, no fight, no fire, no sense of timing or outrage and no idea of how to work a strategy. The only position they've taken in five years is to grab their ankles.

Why are those idiots saying they probably won't filibuster the most extreme reactionary nominated since Robert Bork? Why didn't they come out swinging after Al Gore's speech today? Why aren't they spitting nails that the man who stole two presidential elections is now ignoring FISA and spying on American citizens?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They did stand by and let those elections be stolen. You'd think all that legal training could have come up with something after the GAO report came out that showed 2004 was fixed. Or after reporter after reporter proved that Gore won in 2000. But no.

You'd think they'd object to pResident Bush claiming to be a "war president" when only Congress can declare war, and they've done no such thing. They did give Bush power to act if Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN inspectors - but he did. Bush sent troops into Iraq anyway, knowing they had no WMD's. Bush lied to congress in the process, which is a crime. Still no outrage.

Using the mythical "war on terror"- for which the administration has done nothing to prepare except to fill vital positions with cronies and fools- as cover, the administration locked up a US citizen for over 3 years without due process. They imprisoned people who had nothing to do with the war, subjecting them to beatings, torture, and death. These acts, including the torture and rape of children, are so heinous that they defy the American psyche. Our frozen populace immobile with fear and denial, hypnotized by a well-trained, well-tamed media chanting today's Republican talking points as if they were scripture, or even fact, begs for news of one lost girl to drown out the loss of 100,000 people who never hurt an American who wasn't trying to kill them. And in our frosty sleep we lost our right to privacy, to the security of our homes, of our phones, of our own bodies. We are not free, anymore.

And yet the party asks for my money and my vote. They will not act to save the lives of my sisters who will die from unwanted or dangerous pregnancies; of STD's that might have been prevented; of AIDS spread through ignorance and deceit. They'll save a fetus and leave the born to starve. Our young and our old, our sick and our poor are being strangled with debt and red tape. They stood silent as we stood aghast at the death of New Orleans from incompetent, uncaring neglect.

They expect us to vote for candidates that see women as less than human? Who would make me the property of the state? So that courts and Congress and the men in my life determine the use of my womb?

I can't pretend to know the reason - are they making too much money to demand change? Are they afraid of getting a real job? Are they lazy, or blind, or in on the game? Whatever the reason, I'm done.

I say this one last time -

Lose Roe v. Wade and the Women in this country will BURY the Democratic Party.

Not a threat, but a promise we intend to keep. They have until January 24th to decide if I remain a Democrat or not. If they don't filibuster the vote on Sam Alito's nomination, I go to the Green Party and I take as many of my sisters as I can with me.

"This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America and, I repeat, limited," Bush told reporters after visiting wounded troops at Brooke Army Medical Center.Limited by whom? That's the question. In fact, it's not limited except by President Bush's whim. And that kind of unchecked power held by a president -- any president of any party -- crosses the line and almost certainly is illegal.

"I think most Americans understand the need to find out what the enemy's thinking."And the enemy is you. The enemy is vegetarians. The enemy is gays. The enemy is whomever we don't like. Whadayagonnadoabowdit?

"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," Bush said before returning to Washington from a holiday break at his Texas ranch. "There's an enemy out there."--er, I mean, that's why we're spying on Americans here in the U.S.A. Hehehehehe.

The president denied misleading the public during a 2004 appearance in support of the Patriot Act when he said, "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, a wiretap requires a court order."

Asked about that Sunday, Bush said: "I was talking about roving wire taps, I believe, involved in the Patriot Act. This is different from the NSA program. The NSA program is a necessary program."Why is it necessary to spy on Americans without a court order or, as allowed by the Patriot Act, an after-the-fact sign-off? Why is Bush afraid of letting judges of a secret court with top security clearance keep tabs of what he's up to?

Hey Republicans: You're not going to hold the White House forever. How will you feel about it when it's a Democrat wielding that kind of unchecked power? I remember when the Republicans went absolutely ape shit over the fact that a few dozen FBI files found their way into the White House. Kinda pales in comparison with this, doesn't it?

Shouldn't we all be concerned when a President starts claiming powers normally claimed by a Dictator or a King?

The lessons drawn by a variety of Bush advisers inside and outside the White House as they map a road to recovery in 2006 include these: Overarching initiatives such as restructuring Social Security are unworkable in a time of war. The public wants a balanced appraisal of what is happening on the battlefield as well as pledges of victory. And Iraq trumps all.

"I don't think they realized that Iraq is the totality of their legacy until fairly recently," said former congressman Vin Weber (R-Minn.), an outside adviser to the White House. "There is not much of a market for other issues."File that one under "Duh!" It really leaves me wondering if Bush and his cohorts really thought they could veer off of the war on al-Qaeda and go attack a dictator who seemed to make a career of taunting American Presidents with impotent remarks -- and still be able to just go in and push a right-wing agenda against the poor, all the while embarking on the biggest pork feeding frenzy in the history of the world.

Of course, the knee-jerk response called for by Karl Rove -- the man who saw 9/11 as an opportunity for partisan political exploitation -- was to simply attack and smear anyone who dares criticize the president.

Rove, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House strategic planning director Peter H. Wehner urged the president to dust off the 2004 election strategy and fight back, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal deliberations. White House counselor Dan Bartlett and communications director Nicolle Wallace, however, counseled a more textured approach. The same-old Bush was not enough, they said; he needed to be more detailed about his strategy in Iraq and, most of all, more open in admitting mistakes -- something that does not come easily to Bush."I made a mistake." hehehehe. "Whaddayagonnadoabowdit?" hehehehe.

Although Rove raised concerns about giving critics too much ground, the younger-generation aides prevailed. Bush agreed to try the approach so long as he did not come off sounding too negative. Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion who now works at the White House, helped draft a 35-page public plan for victory in Iraq, a paper principally designed to prove that Bush had one.Pretty sad at that. How interesting it's written by a PR man, not a military specialist. How cynical.

When Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) proposed pulling troops out of Iraq, the White House issued an unusually harsh and personal response comparing him to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore. The original draft, officials said, had been even tougher.Decorated Marine veteran. Populist filmmaker who never saw service. Sure, same difference.

The humility theme was woven into speeches, often in the first two minutes to keep viewers from turning away. Aides had noticed that anger at Bush after Hurricane Katrina subsided somewhat after he took responsibility for the response. The idea, one senior official said, was like fighting with a spouse: "You need to give voice to their concern. That doesn't necessarily solve the division and the difference, but it drains the disagreement of some of its animosity if you feel you've been heard.""Sure, dear, I hear that you're upset. Now let me produce this 35-page document that proves why you're wrong and I'm right."

No one in the White House expects the speech to include anything of the magnitude of Social Security. As one aide put it, instead of home runs, Bush will focus on hitting singles and doubles. "The lesson from this year," said Grover G. Norquist, a GOP activist close to Rove, "is you cannot do anything dramatic unless you have 60 votes" in the Senate, where Republicans are five shy of the count needed to break a filibuster.I assume that means policies short of drowning the government in a bathtub. What with how the Republicans have made government bigger than ever before, with massive budget and trade deficits, it would have to be a pretty big bathtub these days. Maybe the global warming that Bush and Cheney claim doesn't exist will be able to do it.

Despite the gain in polls, some advisers see trouble ahead. Bush's top aides are telling friends they are burned out. Andrew H. Card Jr., already the longest-serving White House chief of staff in a half-century, is among those thought to be looking to leave. Rove's fate is uncertain, as he appears likely to remain under investigation in the CIA leak case, people close to the inquiry said.

Some are concerned that although Bush has changed his approach, he has not changed himself. He has been reluctant to look outside his inner circle for advice, and even some closest to Bush call that a mistake because aides have given up trying to get him to do things they know he would reject.Ah, but God talks to Bush. We have to remember that. Bush hears God's voice in his head, and then marches out and sends American troops and spends American treasure and destroys American credibility -- all the while feeling righteous and holy.